18/02/2011

A SHORT COMPARISON OF
NATIVE VERSUS NONNATIVE WRITING FOR
PUBLICATION PURPOSES
Introduction to Academic writing

Another approach: Using

bottom-up features (lexis and
grammar)

One approach to academic

writing: Discourse moves

e.g., Bhatia, 1998; Carter, 1998; Tribble, 2001;

Scott, 2001; Flowerdew, 2004; Httner et al, 2009
(...)
AIMS: Using characteristic lexico-grammatical traits
/ discoursive items + genre / text type movements

Second approach extended:

e.g., Johns, 1991; Aston, 1997; Bernardini, 2000;

Curado, 2002; De Cock (2003); Yeung, 2009,
Boulton (2010)

--EFL countries (Brazil, France, Spain...)

AIMS: Using linguistic-discoursive traits for language

learning

--Reading specialized material (academic,

professional...) to both identify and propose
language solutions (key phraseology, rhetorical
items, etc) within or across disciplines

18/02/2011

Academic writing: Merging

learning with use

Academic writing: Merging

learning with use
Our Case study to see NNS versus NS:

Start = the good old semi-technical lexis with hugely

different frequencies, collocations, and meanings across
disciplines (cf. Hyland, 2009; Durrant, 2009 )
e.g.; applied linguistics (on the other hand + textual act) vs.
Electrical engineering (as shown in figure + research
oriented)

C.S. (NNS) vs. Humanities,

social, arts (NS) vs CS (NS)

NNS Corpus

te
xt
of
s
di
sc
ge
ip
lin
nr
es
es
/t
ex
tt
yp
es

TR

of

of
#

ST

10
,0
00
s)
( in
1,
00
0s
)

(in

Ty
pe
s

<

<

<

To
ke
ns

>

>
>
>

>
>
>

<

<

<<
<<
<<
<<
<<
<

>
>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>

NS Computer Science

10

=
>
>>

BNC selection

20

>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>

30

NNS Corpus
for Case
Study

40

BNC
selection

C.S. NS (40,180 tokens)

Is
For
That
Be
Are
As
With
This
By
On
It >
From
Was >
Can
Not >
Which
Have
We <
Within
These
At
Were
Also

WORD

50

-10

Relative word frequencies

IN
TO
FOR
AS
THAT
IS
ON
BY
WITH
BE
THIS
ARE
OR
WE
HAVE
CAN
AT
USE
FROM
WHICH
BUT
ALSO
NOT
WILL
SHOUL
D
INTO
ONE
BOTH
EACH
SO
SOME
MAY
SUCH
I
IF
OUR

60

1) Writing for Computer Science (+

empirical / experimental, + research...)
2) Analysis for academic discourse
competence (Spanish faculty / graduate
students inform about research)

18/02/2011

Relative word frequencies

Relative word frequencies

100

WE

HAV
E

AT

CAN

USE

FRO
M
WHI
CH

BUT

ALS
O

NOT

>

>>

>

>>

>>

>

>>

>

70
60

NNS texts

50

BNC texts

40

NS C.S.

30

<

<

Appear* + to be
(20 / 20.4 / 19%)

20
10
0
on
by
with
be
we
can
use
from
also
should
into
both
each
so
some
may
such
I
if
our

>>

>

>>

Similar Use

WILL

SHO
ULD
INT
O

>>

Colligation

ONE

Collocation

80

>>

>>

WORD USE

90

BOT
H
EAC
H

SO

C.S. NS (40,180 tokens)

Is
For
That
Be
Are
As
With
This
By
On
It >
From
Was >
Can
Not >
Which
Have
We <
Within
These
At
Were
Also

NS only

It is possible to
(28 / 8 / 28.4%)

NNS only

Genre and subject / field

Lexical use

Genre

Subject

Collocation

Such as + examples
(52 / 56% --C.S. papers)

If and only if
(71.4% --BNC: Logic)

Colligation

I had + past participle

(47% --BNC reports)

is + to be + past participle
(22 / 17.8% --C.S.: IT and
networking)

Semantic Association

Be + applied to + area
(17 / 25.6 % --C.S. paper
Introductions & Method)

Be / appear + on the right +

side
(19 / 26.6% --C.S.: graphical
design)

Textual Colligation

There is no + noun (beg.

paragraphs)
(34.8% -- BNC articles)

This form + be completed

(beg. paragraphs)
(16.4% -- BNC: survey
reports)

We observe that
(0 / 14.7 / 0%)

The basis for (Direct

Object)
(26.3 / 17.6 / 21%)

Noun + to (no
purpose / no
reported speech)
(26.5 / 1.2 / 17%)

Be + asked to (present
tense)
(0 / 61.5 / 13%)

Semantic Association

In the field of + area

(20 / 11.5 / 16%)

To be seeking +
functionality (28 /
0 / 18%)

Related to + concept
(26 / 76.9 / 36%)

Textual Colligation

As a result of (beg.
paragraphs)
(20 / 31.5 / 26%)

One of the most +

adj. (beg. sentences)
(23.2 / 4.3 / 19%)

For this reason, (beg.

sentences)
(2.9 / 20 / 3%)

18/02/2011

Correlating frequency and use

e.g., e.g., we + observe vs. subj + has been /
was observed (also CS)

1) There is a more restrained use of the words by NNS

authors (i.e., in more restricted clauses).

Word use and context

Lexical use according to variables
Textual
Colligations

NNS and NS

Semantic
Associations

Subject
Genre

Colligations

2) This limitation often obeys the influence of the researchoriented type of discourse in ALL Computer Science
papers. (K. Hylands claim that the semi-technical items
follow the research-oriented stylistic inclination more in
engineering).

NS
NNS

Collocations
0

10

15

20

25

number of items

Discipline versus NNS (Spanish)

writing interference: How much?
Higher frequencies = more matches
Less and less frequent = other options = L1
transfer problems with collocates, etc?